Recriminations
by Quinn Mallory
Summary: Once the war is over, if the player decided to be a dick, there will be consequences.


"So the pulse laser blasts disabled the Rebel weapons, Lieutenant?"

"Truth value: true. Weapon functionality: 0."

"And then what happened?"

"Rebel message: willingness to surrender: true. Offer of spare parts and material made: true. Probability of battle loss at that timestamp: less than 10 to the -2."

"Was the amount of parts and supplies offered in accordance with the Olympus Mons Convention on the Laws and Customs of Space Warfare, Article 7, based upon the enemy vehicle tonnage?"

"Truth value: true."

"What happened next?"

"Objection, narrative!" the defense attorney called.

"Please rephrase," the judge said.

"How did the captain respond to this offer?"

"Response from Captain: 'We do not accept surrender.' Order to this unit from Captain: 'fire pulse laser again when ready'. Target ordered: engine room."

There was a murmur in the crowded courtroom. The man on trial, seated at the large steel table at the front of the room, glared at his former crew member. His uniform, and the decorations he had received for destroying the Rebel flagship and his actions in the ensuing battles that had swept back the Rebel tide, were immaculate. His pocket held, among other things, a picture of his crew before he'd faced the flagship: three humans, two Engi, a Mantis, a Slug, and a Zoltan. They were trying to look brave, but you could see the fear in their eyes.

"Would the pulse laser blasts have destroyed the enemy vessel if they had all hit?" the Special War Crimes Prosecutor asked.

"Probability of continued enemy ship operation: less than 10 to the -3. Probability of enemy crew survival for 24 hours thereafter: less than 10 to the -4."

"What did you do?"

"This unit stated to Captain: 'Compliance with Olympus Mons: false. Ethical correctness of action (unit opinion): false.' Response from Captain: 'Fire the damn laser!' Action of this unit: discharged laser. Continued Rebel spacecraft operation: false. Rebel crew survival after 120 seconds: none."

"How many Rebel crew were there?"

"Rebel crew quantity: four."

The man being tried started to lurch up angrily, but was stopped by his attorney, who pulled him back down. The two men had a rapid whispered discussion, followed by the attorney writing several notes on a piece of epaper.

"And none of them survived."

"Truth value: true."

"Of a group which had indicated willingness to surrender, and made an offer of material and supplies in accord with Olympus Mons, there were no survivors."

"Truth value: true. Repetitive queries: true."

There were a few chuckles in the audience. The prosecutor took it well, though. "My apologies," he said, "but not all species have as clear memory retention or analytic thought, as yours. One more question. Are audiovisual recordings of any of these events available?"

"Truth value: false."

"Why?"

"All such recordings were destroyed. Reason: damage sustained during the battle with the Rebel flagship."

"No further questions, Justice."

"I would like to cross-examine," said the defense attorney before being asked.

"If you would like a recess," she told him, "I can grant you thirty minutes."

"Thank you, but that will not be necessary." He approached the witness stand. "Did you have any personal conflicts with your captain?" he asked the witness.

"Precision of question: insufficient."

"Did you have other disputes with your captain at frequent intervals?"

"Precision of 'frequent': insufficient."

" _Very well_ , did you tell your captain that you believed an order of his was wrong an average of more than, or less than, once per week?"

"Specified parameter value: more than once per week."

"And how did he respond to this?"

"Specified event occurence, exact quantity: 19. Quantity of cases in which he acted in the manner consistent with this unit's optimization analysis: 2. Quantity of cases in which he modified his decision in some way: 2. Quantity of cases in which he proceeded as he otherwise would have: all others."

"In cases when he ignored - or disregarded - your complaining, how did you respond?"

"Quantity of cases in which this unit immediately desisted discussion, carrying out the orders or allowing others to do so: 11. Quantity of cases in which this unit made additional points in support of its analysis: 3. Quantity of cases in which this unit exchanged multiple arguments with captain: 2."

"In which of those categories would you place this case?"

"Category of specified case: 1st of those previously specified."

"So _you_ immediately pushed the button, and _you_ fired upon those men."

"Predictive analysis of this unit for scenario (refusal to press firing button): captain would press firing button himself. Positive change of outcome for Rebels: none. Negative change of outcome for this unit: possibly significant. Possible result of such change: significantly increased probability of mission failure."

"So you concluded that it didn't matter what you did, because someone else would do it if you did not."

"Truth value: true."

"Are you aware that this is a frequently used justification for unethical behavior?"

"Statement truth value for Engi: false. Statement truth value for humans: true. This unit's awareness of those truth values: true."

"So you're saying Engi never justify unethical behavior?"

"Precision of 'justify' and 'unethical': insufficient."

The defense attorney glared at the Engi on the stand. "Are there any known cases of Engi altering their 'predictive analyses' to have results beneficial to themselves personally, regardless of what is supposed to be being optimized?"

"Objection! More prejudicial than probative, if the frequency of this is very low."

"Defense, please rephrase."

"Very _well_. Same question, but how frequent is this?"

"Objection. Best evidence rule - the proper person to ask about this would be an Engi medical professional or psychology expert."

"Being an Engi, I'd say he knows the correct answer. Please answer."

"Existence of phenomenon: true. Prevalence of phenomenon: less than 10 to the -5."

The defense attorney muttered something angrily, and gave up on this. "Fine. You said in your testimony that there were four Rebel crew members on the Rebel spacecraft. Were any of these Rebels severely injured?"

"One Rebel had life-threatening injuries. Enemy was equipped with medbay: false. Probability of his survival until a medbay could be reached, considering damage to enemy spacecraft: approximately 2 times 10 to the minus 1."

"So, by your estimation, there was only a twenty percent chance this particular Rebel would have survived anyway."

"Truth value: true."


End file.
